Monday, January 14, 2013

Here is How Evolutionists Lie to the Public

A Classic Example

Hitler called it the Big Lie. To convince people your mythology is unquestionably true, small lies won’t do because the average person, who tells small lies himself, will not be fooled. But we believe outrageous, big lies, because we can’t believe anyone would have such audacity to promote them so forcefully. It must be true. And while we have always had myths, and shamans and priests to tell them to us, this time is different because the lie comes in the form of science, such as exemplified in this latest BBC video which we pick up at the 2:25 mark where evolutionist Matt Ridley, in response to the softball question of whether there is any debate in science about the fact of evolution, has these lies to tell:

No, it’s not. It’s quite clear now to scientists because the evidence has got stronger and stronger as the years go by. We now have genetic evidence, as well as the evidence from fossils and other things. We’ve sequenced the genome of Neandertal man, and we can clearly see how it is related to us, and related to the chimpanzee and so on, and we can see that we cross bred with it about 40,000 years ago”

We can read in the genes exactly the whole history of life. And we’re gradually understanding all of that, and it absolutely confirms there’s descent with modification with natural selection, and all these things that Darwin said. There’s plenty of room for disagreement about the details. It’s not one dogmatic theory, there’s a whole bunch of theories.

The first thing they should do when they see a consensus is try and shoot it down. But there is no question that all creatures on this planet are [evolutionarily] related. We can see that in the genes. They all share the same genetic code—it looks like a frozen accident. There’s no rhyme or reason why we have the particular genetic code we do. But bacteria have it, we have it, plants have it—it’s all connected.

Fifty years ago you could just about say “well, we still don’t know, what makes living matter different from non living matter. There might be something very special and incomprehensible about it.” That’s gone. We now know that it’s from information technology like any other, and it’s been evolving by sequential changes in DNA sequences.

That was such a dizzying flurry of big lies we, frankly, lost count. Those lies are so absurd, so unequivocally false, and spoken with such conviction, that the average person is sure to believe them.

Unfortunately such lies are the rule rather than the exception. This evolution propaganda segment was no mistake—it is unfortunately typical.

Of course one can make truthful arguments for evolution. And one can try to find scientific evidence to support it. It is not easy, but it can be done. But that is not what evolutionists do. They mandate evolution. They insist evolution is a fact in spite of the evidence. And that is a big lie.

beacuse we don't what makes an organism what it is so we cannot know if one type can evolve into another type.

Joe,read what you wrote," we cannot know if" , that means it could or it couldn't,

What chance? Please be specific.

IOW provide some data for this chance

You said it , provide your own data why we cannot know if it can, why didn't you say "No one knows what determines what an organism is. And until we know that we can know if one type of organism can evolve into another."

Now it does not sound very logical but it eliminates the chance,according to you, that one type can evolve into another

I cannot know if your name is Joe , therefore there is a chance that your name is Joe and there is a chance that your name is not Joe. Now substitute "one type of organism can evolve into another type" for " your name is Joe" . This is your statement

I didn't make the claim you did, you claimed our lack of knowledge of A prevents knowledge of B, one of the things we have no knowledge of is whether B occurs.So there is a chance that B occurs, just as there is a chance that B doesn't occur.Your claim of lack of knowledge of B is a claim that there is a chance B occurs. Show me where I messed up and I will concede my density

We can't predict UCA-degree phenotype evolution, even by analogical extrapolation. Short of that you have to observe the evolution in question. That hasn't been done. Now, stop and think about how many absurd things we could say we know and have tons of evidence for once our knowledge isn't dependent on either observation, analogical extrapolation, or prediction corroboration. We could "know" all kinds of contradictory things with virtual certainty.

Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief.

Man that is one of my favorites, a meatball sandwich. Teresa's in Erie makes a Meatball Nightmare, a regular meatball sandwich with Parmesan ,mushrooms and hot peppers, toasted crispy. Yum. Next to an Oyster Loaf from Julien's that is my favorite po boy. Sorry for the digression,back on topic, Joe you are a moron:)

Work 4p- 12, I think Julien is a guy, it is in Lafayette, La. When I visit my sister the tradition is at least one meal at Julien Po Boys, my daughter goes for the Shrimp Po Boy. My wife not a fan. Ever heard of a King Cake?

Teresa's is also one of those traditions,along with beignets, bar-b-que, Mexican food.You might see a pattern.

In New Orleans, roughly starting at New Years til Fat Tuesday is known as Mardi Gras season, someone will have a pre Mardi Gras party. At the party for desert is served a cake shaped like a ring. It tastes like a Danish filled with cream cheese sprinkled with colored sugar on top. Inside is a small plastic baby. Whoever gets the baby has to host the party the next week. My daughter brought one back from N.O. yesterday, I did some serious harm to it last night and breakfast this morning.

Perhaps we should get CH to do a food related post. I certainly have religious convictions on certain foods. French bread for instance.

3) There is no extant natural theory that implies that the particular divergent branching lineages posited by UCA'ists would occur if there was a UCA in the precambrian.

4) Per 3, no causal theory corrobation of UCA has ever occurred.

5) Cladistic tree-generation rules have no known correlation to the phenotypic/extinction effects of mutations + environment

6) Per 5, cladistic tree-generation has absolutely ZERO known relevance to whether UCA could have occurred naturalistically

Now, big boy, just WHAT data INDICATES that UCA happened naturalistically per the posited lineages? If you can't answer, then YES, UCA'ists are either pathological liars, morons, or both. If you can, you can stop a huge waste of time on this forum. Somehow I'm betting you haven't been keeping the REAL evidence a secret. There IS NONE.

Yeah. I'm serious. If you're a woman, woman up. IOW, adult up. Joining Moronton is a sure sign you're all bluff. This is so simple. Define HOW data serves as evidence for a hypothesis by showing HOW it indicates the hypothesis is more plausible than its competitors. Then, show the data that does that for UCA.

King Cake sounds great, now I have to try it. Also, that little custom with hiding a toy baby inside is interesting. You mentioned Louisiana so I wonder if that’s French custom.

I remember Mardi Gras well, it’s very popular European event and it naturally spread around the world with colonizers. Blaming and then burning effigy was fun. Hey crazy idea-we should burn Jerry Coyne effigy. First we have to find old fur coats to make his arms.

I’m in trouble, Diogenes showed up unexpectedly. I’ll have to apologize to him for what I did few days ago.

I take it you are not a fan of Coyne , never really paid much attention to his blog, hardcore atheists are a different kind of fundie to me, that is why I never go to pz's blog anymore. Yes, I wouldn't mess with Diogenes .

Not much effigy burning burning in its present form, mostly drinking and partying,watching extravagant floats and fighting for trinkets the members of the krewes throw. It is worth a visit if you get a chance.

A little housecleaning first, the softball was this "Yeah, it's either a big lie or these people are literally stupid beyond belief " while I understand that is your belief it can just as well describe your position. After all the belief that anyone who disagrees with your" logic" is either stupid or a liar is foolish within belief, in my opinion,it ignores the possibility that one is mistaken or that the truth lies somewhere else. It also permits one to dismiss any alternate facts out of hand. Unless of course your only interest marginalize anyone who disagrees with you, then it effective way to block contradictory information.

So to be clear, your claim is the these are things that are indisputable , unable to be disputed or denied . Let's see what a non professional biologist can make of it.i hope that any requests for you to clarify your facts will not be viewed as not " maning up".

Thorton apparently disagrees this is indisputable , but perhaps the word " observed" is an issue, is this required to happen in real time? A human lifetime? Would a fossil lineage count as observed? I believe the transitional of the whale is fairly complete. Second, if a process is too slow would we recognize it anyway in real time? Can we see the North American plate move? Now perhaps your request is even more, can we see the split between major groups, major branches? Perhaps if you specify exactly what would be required to falsify your claim

First,why is nature bound by analogically extrapolation? QT would seem to violate any extrapolation.

Second, the basic building blocks of the vast majority of life is the same, DNA is mostly universal, outwardly forms vary but built on the mostly the same structures. Cats and dogs are different but a lot the same,variations of a theme.in other words I can imagine more radically divergent branchesAgain perhaps specify exactly what consistutes " radical" in your claim, sorry to ask for these clarifications but facts require precision is order to judge undeniabilty

3) There is no extant natural theory that implies that the particular divergent branching lineages posited by UCA'ists would occur if there was a UCA in the precambrian.Really, this is surprising since the UCA is supposed to predate the Cambrian, why does the appearance in the fossil record refute UCA? I have heard lots of explanations for the "sudden" appearance" ,more calcium in seawater, snowball earth, statistically the same rate of growth, previous mass extinction, appearance of eyes, life existing in greater diversity before the " explosion", 50 millions years is not sudden. It seems to me that these are theories on the level of the competing one that an unknown designer with unknown abilities for an unknown reason with an unknown mechanism over the period of 50 million years created primitive creatures which most of soon became extinct

So I must say this fact is certainly disputable unless your definition " natural theory" is more of a strict scientific one.

4) Per 3, no causal theory corrobation of UCA has ever occurred.

This is easy then if 3 is disputable , the proof of 4 is the same

5) Cladistic tree-generation rules have no known correlation to the phenotypic/extinction effects of mutations + environment

No opinion,ask a professional, except one would have to known both factors to determine a correlation, do you know these facts?

6) Per 5, cladistic tree-generation has absolutely ZERO known relevance to whether UCA could have occurred naturalistically

just WHAT data INDICATES that UCA happened naturalistically per the posited lineages?

I suggest you ask a professional, in my experience people's, who deem themselves experts with no formal or actual in the field experience , opinion is questionable. It seems the height of hubris to believe I as an dabbler is/was smarter than every professional in a field with their years of experience, I hope understand my caution

If you can't answer, then YES, UCA'ists are either pathological liars, morons, or both

Sorry ,this is nonsense,why should my limited knowledge prove that others are morons? I am curious how you arrived at this conclusion.

. If you can, you can stop a huge waste of time on this forum.

I Imagine even omniscience on my part could not stop the debate on this forum. I guess it is a matter of one's goals that determine whether something is a waste. If your goal is to vanquish one's foes with the power of ones intellect and have them acknowledge it,it might be a waste of time, my condolences.

Somehow I'm betting you haven't been keeping the REAL evidence a secret. There IS NONE.

I am sure you are correct,no evidence against your belief will ever be REAL. After how could there be because there is NONE

Joe G says: "Unfortunately the genes do NOT determine what an organism is. No one knows what determines what an organism is. And until we know that we cannot know if one type of organism can evolve into another."

I'm guessing the soul determines what an organism is and orchestrates its development from two cells to 100 trillion cells. But if scientists already exclude that possibility due to preconceived religious beliefs, the truth may be hidden for a while longer.

How is that bad news for geneticists vel? I have two that say it isn't- that it is what it is. As for patermity tests, please explain te relevance, if you can.

Dr Denton:

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene

Unless you are saying that genes have been excluded as the exclusive determinant of form? Recognizing the field of evolutionary developmental biology?

Or as Dr Denton says above " It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation"

. Now I am ignorant but this does not sound like the genes are excluded , it sounds they are a necessary component .

Is this what you meant,not the sole determining factor? Perhaps it was the " excluded" ,here is the definition so you can see the source of my confusionb : to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion

As for the paternity, I see I was in error,even a useless DNA if unique to an individual would be useful. My apologies.

Again genes INFLUENCE development but influencing is not the same as determining

If they influence then they are not excluded, thank you for the clarification.

Building materials influence what type of building can be constructed but they do not determine what will be constructed.

Perhaps it is the word " determine" that is a problem, the materials do determine what will be constructed, as does the design,as does the budget,as does the terrain ,as does the skills of the workmen. Many thing go into the equation.

I said they are a factor, you seem to have an issue with nuance, " many things go into the equation". For instance choice of wood and paper as framing will determine that you will be unsuccessfull in building 110 story skyscraper

A couple of years ago I designed and built an addition onto my house. For that I had thousands of dollars worth of lumber, cement, nails and footings delivered to my house.

Why did you choose those materials, why not gingerbread? Houses are built of gingerbread

what is the meaning of your sentence? 1) that the knowledge of the genes don't allow at the present status to make prevision on a future development (so I understand your use of the future).2) that genes (and dna) have nothing to do with the development.

Please can you give me at least a reference of this point so that I can check it myself.

"But yes, the candidate would be the internal programming of the organism."

Where is locate this "internal programming", if not in DNA in which other part of the cell? What is the stage of this research? Again, have you references.

1) that the knowledge of the genes don't allow at the present status to make prevision on a future development (so I understand your use of the future).

Dr Denton:

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene

2) that genes (and dna) have nothing to do with the development.

LoL!

Where is locate this "internal programming", if not in DNA in which other part of the cell?

That is what science is for.

What research demonstrates that we are the sum of our genome? Please be specific.

Good question , perhaps Joe has a unique definition of the word excluded. Both Joe' references do not seem to support the excluded claim, Denton actually allows some genes do determine development, the other is concerned with species,not individual, level effects.

"Where is locate this "internal programming", if not in DNA in which other part of the cell?"

You have given a very vague answer. I understand from your answer that nothing concrete has been proposed and we are still far to have candidate mechanisms.

The other references that you post (Denton and Sermonti) are not very helpful to answer my specific question; they are more criticism on current theories but no specific alternative mechanisms are proposed. I have also the feeling that Sermonti himself is rather negative on the possibility to find an answer to this question.

I have read few years ago a book of S. B. Carroll "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom."(2005). He presented several examples how the genome can control the development of organisms, up to complex form and pattern (e.g. the wing of a butterfly). At least he shows that up to a certain grade candidate mechanisms have been identified.

"Denton said taht genes control the development. Controlling development IS NOT the ame as determining what will develop."

It is a little obscure what you(Denton) mean. Maybe you are saying that to produce an organism, we need more than the genome. The genes produce sure some parts, but not all.But with this we come again to my question, which other mechanism is involved in the development and were is localized. How much is due to genome and how much to this unknown mechanism. In any case, if no candidate is in sight for this complementary mechanism, why speculate on it. It seems to me more reasonable to assume that the development is controlled only (or at least, mostly) by the genome of which we all recognise that has a role in this process.

Joe GAre so egg and other cellular components that determine what will develop , at the contrary of the genome that only influences this?My only point is to understand what is determining what will develop, because you seems to attribute to the genome the only role to produce row material.

No one knows what determines what type of organism will develop. I am just pointing out that we already know there are other cellular factors than the genome.

I am confident that when we find out it will be some type of internal software. The research would be to determine where/ what part of the cell.

Venter synthesized DNA and the cell worked, so it ain't the DNA. The DNA to me would be more like RAM.

Purely synthesized ribosomes do not function. That tells me they lack programming. Church synthesized part of a ribosome and it did crank out one polypeptide. That tells me that they corrupted that ribosome's programming.

"I am confident that when we find out it will be some type of internal software. The research would be to determine where/ what part of the cell."

Well get crackin' joey, in your rootin tootin sooper dooper high falootin basement toaster repair lab and figure out where the alleged software is located! You say that's what science is for but why do you care what science is for and what makes you think that you know what science is for? Science deals with investigating, understanding, and explaining reality joey, not your religious fantasies. Come on joey, show that you are superior to science and can find the alleged software that your imaginary designer-allah allegedly installed.

"...some type of internal software"...?

What? You don't know what type of software? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Everyone else knows that it's the X-49 release of Windows 778, revision 12.2. The release and installation of the 12.3 revision has been delayed because allah is on a honeymoon with a goat named Mary Lou.

“I have also read Carroll- endles forms and making of the fittest. He doesn't know what determines what type of organism will develop other than what Sermonti said”.

Carroll shows in his book several nice examples how the genome determines the development, controlling not only the substances, but also the shape and the structure of biological parts. He shows and explains how the genes are able to shape the development of body regions (e.g. Hox genes). The studies could be not completed, but they show clearly that genes make more than prepare row materials. It is for me a very interesting and promising work, at the contrary of Sermonti that offers nothing, other than the affirmation that is a mystery.

In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a Horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

So the geneticist, Sermonti, is basically concluding the same thing Moses did 3,500 years ago when he wrote about different "kinds" of animals being fruitful and multiplying. "The mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known". It is refreshing to see a scientist just tell it like it is.

I'm still waiting on an evolutionists here to give us one example of a genuine animal speciation being observed.

Guiseppe Sermonti is not a "prominent geneticist", that is more creationist credential inflation. Because he's Italian and a crackpot, you think you can pass him off to Americans as somebody important.

And that passage you copied from his book is basically insane. We know a lot about embryonic development as controlled by the HOX gene kit. We know the vertebrate HOX gene kit was formed by two duplications of the primordial HOX gene kit, as the various copies express the genes in the same order, physically, on the body on vertebrates vs. fruit fly embryos.

But the real winner is this insane passage from Neal Tedford:

So the geneticist, Sermonti, is basically concluding the same thing Moses did 3,500 years ago when he wrote about different "kinds" of animals being fruitful and multiplying.

Wow. Can you read English? How the heck did you get that from Sermonti's ridiculous passage?

Will you please explain to me that the story of Joseph and Laban, also written by Moses, proves that if a sheep drinks from water containing speckled wood, it will give birth to speckled lambs?

I really need more your creationist cuttin'-edge, flat-Earth science from the Bronze Age.

The Sermonti quote did not present any evidence. The quote of Sermonti was pure argument from authority. Argument from authority is inferior to argument from evidence.

Here's the evidence: vertebrates have four copies of HOX gene kit and the genes in each kit are sytenous with the genes in arthropods like fruit flies. The genes in each gene kit are expressed in the same order in embryo body segments during embryonic development, when we compare vertebrate (e.g. humans) and fruit flies.

This proves that we know vastly more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago. This proves that the plain meaning of Sermonti's quote, at least taken out of context anyway, is not just wrong but denialist. Denying the earth is round.

This proves one of three things must be true.

1. Sermonti is an idiot.

2. Sermonti was lying.

3. Sermonti was quoted out of context to change his meaning.

I'd guess 3, but you take your pick.

And unguided evolution cannot account for HOX genes.

Gish gallop. Joe has proven wrong, thus trying to change the subject.

The fact is, we do understand far more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago, so Sermonti is either ignorant of modern science, or he was quoted out of context. He seems unaware of any work done since 1920.

Our knowledge of HOX gene kits and embryonic development proves that we DO know vastly more about embryonic development than we did 30 years ago.

Automobiles, too, are related. But I don't see anybody clamoring that they evolved via common descent, natural selection and random mutations. Evolutionists are not just liars. They are stupid as well.

Speaking of scientists in general, the great Paul Feyerabend once wrote:

The most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society.

From Against Method by Paul Feyerabend

Feyerabend might as well be talking about evolutionists. The evolutionist's big stupid lie is certainly surrounded with a carefully crafted aura of excellence.

Automobiles, too, are related. But I don't see anybody clamoring that they evolved via common descent, natural selection and random mutations. Evolutionists are not just liars. They are stupid as well.

"The birds and the bees" is an euphemism and a lot of reproduction seems unguided. The only people possibly clamoring for an car to demonstrate those qualities would be someone who believed that organisms were created the same way,more or less ,as cars. So Joe why no clamoring?

I don't see anyone having any problem with "idiot" or "moron" being tossed about, that's par for the course for these type of boards where emotions run high. Creative clean insults can be quite amusing and are appreciated by which ever side makes them. :)

But there's only one poster, Joe G, who consistently goes way over the line with his vulgar obscenities. He's already been banned from several other blogs for exactly the same behavior. I see you've wasted hours cleaning up after his mess here too.

Why is he allowed to keep posting his disruptive verbal pornography here?

You seem to be doing the same thing Joe. Just make up a word that means the same thing,we will get the meaning, I do it for you if you want,after all Jeff needed help too. The Man asked you to stop,stop.

If I get Dr. Elizabeth Liddle, the person who runs TSZ and who banned you for the offense, here to testify that you did indeed post your "tunie" porn, will you agree to never post here again?

Let's see who's a liar Chubs.

This is the only non evo board that allows him.

LOL! The only board I've been "banned" from is UD which lists hundreds of pro-science posters banned. You were the only person ever banned at TSZ. In fact, your big mouth even got you banned at Fred Williams' YEC haven EvolutionFairyTales. That took a special kind of stupidity Chubs, the Joe Gallien kind.

OTOH I get banned by evos for exposing their lies and cowardice.

LOL! Of course it wasn't your fault you got banned all those times Chubs. It wasn't your relentless stream of lies, vulgarity, and stupidity. It was those darn evos conspiring to EXPEL ID-Creationism's brightest star!

thorton is lying about me and spewing false accusations. Why aren't you chiding him? And I have stopped using bad words and use the same level that thorton is using.

Apparently CH cares about the seven words, and yes you still used them recently. My question is why do you let yourself be jerked around like a monkey on the chain by Thorton. If you ignored it and just continued to do whatever it is that you do,he would lose interest, it is your reaction that rewards the behavior . You are constantly calling me moron coward stupid etc. do I ever acknowledge it? Why give you the satisfaction. Humor is the greatest weapon not stupid boring insults.

And Joe I saw the post of the picture,while it wasn't technically porn, it was highly inappropriate and you deserved to get the boot, now I realize that you will not heed any of this but as you said something is wrong with me.

Umm it isn't porn at all. Period. And it was highly appropriate given the lies, cowardice and treatment provided by the evos posting there.

They are a bunch of lowlife instigating cowards.

And no, I do not ignore lies, especially lies about me. He should just be banned. Then I will ignore him.

To me it's like how dare Dr Hunter allow this pig to continually post lies about me?

Then the way thorton runs to tattle and kiss his butt, well that is classic cowardice. Especially seeing that his trash talking lies would get his butt kicked in the real world, he is getting off pretty easy.

If you can't see that thorton is nothing but a cowardly instigator, then you have serious issues.

My question is why do you let yourself be jerked around like a monkey on the chain by Thorton. If you ignored it and just continued to do whatever it is that you do,he would lose interest, it is your reaction that rewards the behavior .

Joe is waaaay too stupid to ever realize he's being played like a Stradivarius. He's been way too stupid for years, and he'll be way too stupid for years to come.

He doesn't understand evolutionary biology even a little, only repeats the same stupid Creationist talking points ad nauseum. Screaming obscenities and making threats is the only gratification his big fat ego gets.

Thorton,do you have evidence that Joe G made threats against your family?

It was 6 or so years ago back on the old NAIG board. Joe used to post there as "John Paul", The BB software they use is rather primitive and doesn't keep archives AFAIK. I know what Joe did however, and so does he.

NAIG also

Is there a thread or other evidence at TSZ wherein Joe G posted the offensive photograph and was banned?

Here is the link where Joe posted the 'tunie' pic (moderator removed pic)

Here is the TSZ page with the rules for posting porn being a permanent ban, put in place specially because of this incident.

Diogenes, you may find this interesting. There is a 100+ page thread at the Panda's Thumb board ATBC discussing Joe's anti-social behavior and threat-making. Particularly disturbing is an incident from the early 2000's where Joe was making physical threats from his workplace at Stratus Computers. Someone traced the IP back to Stratus and reported the threats, Joe was subsequently fired.

Here are (with links) various people discussing Joe's numerous physical threats. Read the thread from the start for a real treat.

You're right, Joe. Atheists have no grounds to expect anyone to behave according to any normative criteria. And anyone that calls someone a liar and yet can't produce a smidgen of evidence to back up that claim is either depraved or pathetically moronic.

Actually, CH is so right on this last post that he might as well shut down posting again. It's not like his opposition has anything relevant to say. It's just one logical fallacy after another, mixed in with groundless insults. It's a waste of perfectly good disk space.

The most amazing thing is that when they say something that isn't just bogus, they're actually doing teleological-platonic thought themselves. It's literally mind-boggling. At no time are they ever doing scientific reasoning in terms of event regularities and predictions relevant to their beliefs.

The most amazing thing is that when they say something that isn't just bogus, they're actually doing teleological-platonic thought themselves. It's literally mind-boggling. At no time are they ever doing scientific reasoning in terms of event regularities and predictions relevant to their beliefs.

LOL!

Shorter LFJJ:

"I don't understand the science being discussed at all, so that means no one else can understand it either!"

Yes it was Chubs. Back in November I asked you for your evidence that the Great Pyramid was an antenna and you linked to some woo woo site which stated:

"WHETHER THE PYRAMID OF CHEOPS COULD SERVE FOR COMMUNICATION WITH SPACE?

and Karel Drbal, a Czechoslovakian engineer and pyramidologist, described the pyramid as "a kind of cosmic antenna, tuning into sources of energy of vaster intensity and then focusing it into its centre."

Joe G: Yes. Do you have a point? Do you think there is some other way to deal with lying coward bully-wannabees, ie evolutionists?

Oh yes, I have a point. I want to know more, Joe. I'm fascinated by you.

Do you have any plans to punch anyone in the future, Joe? Near future, maybe?

What is cause for punching, Joe?

"Humans and chimps are 98.7% identical at the DNA level"... KAPOW!!

Stephen Meyer in Signature in the Cell, p.303, wrote "The presence of the nitrogen-rich chemicals necessary for the production of nucleotide bases prevents the production of ribose sugars. Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA", which isn't true ... KAPOW!!

"Australopithecus looks like a human from the waist down and ape from the waist up" ... KAPOW!!

"There are 32 species of feathered dinosaurs" ... KAPOW!!

"Ambulocetus has the teeth and ear structure of a whale and limbs of an artiodactyl" ... KAPOW!!

Tell me, Joe, what can we say that will get you to punch us?

Whom, specifically, will you punch first, you brave, brave man? Who's first on the list? Dawkins, eh? PZ Myers, maybe? Be specific. When are they gonna get it?

[quote from Stephen Meyer's chemical falsehoods] "Yet both ribose and the nucleotide bases are needed to build RNA"

Yes it is [true]. You can just produce them indirectly.

Um, so you are saying that because you can produce them, that means you can not produce them, as Meyer claimed. You are basically saying Not-Q is true because Q is true. Thus Meyer right.

Typical creationist logic, we know. Call it the Law of Mandatory Contradiction (LMC).

"Humans and chimps are 98.7% identical at the DNA level"...

Except they are not.

Citation to the literature, please, Joe, or STFU.

If 'common design implies common designer', why do creationists always lie to claim the design is uncommon?

"Australopithecus looks like a human from the waist down and ape from the waist up"

Joe: Not really

Whoa. I have been swamped by your vast knowledge of science. Please slow down-- my brain cannot process your mountain of evidence. Please break "Not really" up into parts, first writing "Not" and only later writing "really" when my brain is ready to process it.

You win, Joe. I concede. Your "Not really" has defeated me. You have proven that 6,000 years ago, dirt turned into the human genome by sorcery.

I accept Christ as my personal Savior. I will start hating on the gays and using the rod on my children now.

But tell me, Joe: you mean Australopithecus has something non-ape-like above the waist? What would that be? Or: you mean it has something non-human-like below the waist? Which part would that be, Joe? The sacrum? Bicondylar surface? Toe bones? Do tell, Joe.

The cause for punching is the continued lies and overall bulying from evos.

But be specific, Joe. Which continued lies are cause for punching? Specifically.

Joe:Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

You are a moron. What is your evidence that "98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome"? You did not give any citations.

I said 98.7%, not 98.5%, and I was citing the standard reference everybody cites, which was based on sequencing 94% of the chimpanzee genome. Specifically: the Chimpanzee Sequencing and AnalysisConsortium, 2005. Details below.

My number was based on sequencing 94% of the chimpanzee genome, Joe.

Yet Joe writes:

Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

"The total coverage of the rough draft is 2.7 billion nucleotides, 94% of the chimpanzee genome...

The rough draft sequence supports the initial findings [from the 1970's] of high similarity (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). Due to the fragmentary nature of the sequence, researchers were only able to align about 2.4 Gb of high quality DNA sequence (about 80% of the human genome). They found that nucleotide mismatches over the whole alignment totaled ~35 million and averaged 1.23%." [Creationist Todd C. Wood]

CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood then double-checked their 2005 results. He compares PROTEIN sequences, not DNA sequences, so his numbers are a little different:

"...I found that 75% of the human predicted protein sequences matched a predicted chimpanzee sequence at >97.25% identity, and more than half were >99% identical... My analysis confirms the similarity reported by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (2005)." [Creationist Todd C. Wood]

But wait. Some of those human-chimp differences are due to comparing just two individuals, ignoring variation WITHIN each species (SNP's = single nucleotide polymorphisms.) So the varation within species = SNP's has to be subtracted out, which reduces the inter-species difference:

"In detecting species-specific genomic differences between humans and chimps, it is necessary to identify differences that are polymorphic in one or both species, since polymorphisms cannot by definition be fixed, or species-specific, differences. For example, the frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in humans and chimpanzees suggests that the fixed differences between the two genomes may be as low as 1.06% (Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). The remaining differences in the published sequences are variants within one species or the other." [Creationist Todd C. Wood]

So the inter-species difference could be as low as 1.06%, and per-nucleotide identity could be as high as 98.94%.

Yet Joe tells us:

Ya see, moron, that 98.5% came from analyzing two similar small DNA sequences, not the entire genome.

I asked you before, Joe, I'll ask you again: If your hypothesis is 'common design implies common designer', WHY ARE YOU LYING OUTRIGHT TO MAKE THE COMMON DESIGN APPEAR UNCOMMON?

Let us compare ID and Nazism, and let's see what happens when you replace "Jew" with "Darwinist."

1. In both cases, the Jew/Darwinist is claimed to be purely destructive, because he is atheistic/materialistic, and materialism can only be destructive. (Note that the Nazis accused Jews of being closet "materialists" just pretending to have a religion.)

2. The Jew/Darwinist is called a Christ-killer. (Yes, creationists William Dembski, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Kindell, and Dan Gilbert did indeed call "Darwinists" Christ-killers, and yes, Nazis called Jews Christ-killers.)

3. The Jew/Darwinist is blamed for causing World War I *AND* World War II.

4. The Jew/Darwinist initiated, and is behind, Bolshevik revolutions.

5. The Jew/Darwinist is determined to destroy Christianity.

6. The Jew/Darwinist is dangerous because he does not believe in an afterlife.

7. The Jew/Darwinist is an intellectual elite maintaining a stranglehold on all professional institutions by illicit means.

8. The Jew/Darwinist is called a disease, parasite, or vermin that feeds on the host body, Christendom, and must be eliminated or civilization will perish.

9. The Jew/Darwinist has promoted a "worldview" that is mechanistic, reductionist, materialistic, corrosive to society, etc.

10. The Jew/Darwinist is blamed for promoting homosexuality, abortion, and lascivious popular entertainment.

11. The Jew/Darwinist is to blame for higher criticism of the Bible/documentary hypothesis.

12. The Jew/Darwinist is to blame for secularism, liberalism, rationalism, and the Enlightenment.

13. The Jew/Darwinist is himself sensuous and sexually promiscuous.

14. The Jew/Darwinist has promoted a "worldview" that ruined modern art, modern music, theater, etc. The Jew/Darwinist can neither create beauty nor appreciate it.

15. The Jew/Darwinist destroys family and/or marriage because of his materialism.

Since you haven't give a quote from evolutionist "experts", I'll give five quotes from five "experts" on Intelligent Design.

Paul Nelson, ID expert, admits THERE IS NO THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” [page 64, "Interview: The Measure of Design, A Conversation About the Past, Present & Future of Darwinism & Design". Touchstone 17 (6): 60–65. July/August 2004.]

Phillip Johnson, ID expert, admits THERE IS NO THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world.” [The Berkeley Science Review, “In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley”, Spring 2006]

George Gilder, ID expert, ADMITS INTELLIGENT DESIGN HAS NO CONTENT:

“What’s being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there’s a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.” [George Gilder, Boston Globe, 2005]

The pro-ID blogger, EvoGuide, admits INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS DEAD AND WAS NEVER ALIVE.

"To all my fellow evolution skeptics out there, I’m sad to tell you that creationism and ID are dead. And it’s not even as if ID entered the ring with evolution and got its butt kicked all over the canvas. Then at least, it would have died in honor. Instead, its more as if, for all these years, it has not yet even been able to figure out how to climb into the ring." [EvoGuide, “Towards a Better Version of ID- A Manifesto”]

"... I will admit that the DI contributes absolutely nothing to science. It just attacks Darwinism but offers no plausible alternative. I fully agree that, even if an inference for design is plausible, that doesn’t really help us very much. Science wants to know how something has emerged and who by. They haven’t discovered this and so they have no theory of their own. [Joe Bozorgmehr at Panda's Thumb]

ID is a hypothesis, but so is Darwinian Evolution. Even several Evolutionary sources will admit Evolution is still in the hypothesis phase which is expected given the wide array of Evolutionary claims.

Icplusplus,Even several Evolutionary sources will admit Evolution is still in the hypothesis phase

I call "Bull" on that. You make a bare assertion. I presented evidence cited to the sources. You present no evidence, just bare assertion.

Evolution is a theory because, unlike a mere hypothesis, it makes testable predictions confirmed by observations. I know the evidence itself, thus I don't need to care what "experts" think.

We don't need "experts." We have evidence: the fossils that you creationists insisted were impossible, and that, being intermediate, were supposed to be impossible and would supposedly drop dead. They did exist, contra your predictions, and we found them. We have the genomic comparisions. We have the unique nested hierarchy and the tree of life. We have biogeography.

You can't even explain why there are so many macropods in Australia. Swam over the Sunda Strait after running from Noah's Ark over the Himalaya, maybe?

Does your theory predict Austalidelphian marsupial fossils in Antarctica? No? What the hell does it predict?

Also the same Diogenes whom called Dr. Shapiro a "cowardly wuss" and has delusions of grandeur Dr. Shapiro is "terrified" of him as stated on another blog. It now appears it is after Joe and Dr. Hunter...

Shapiro said he did not ban me, but I tried submitting comments at his blog post devoted to attacking me personally, and my comments vanished.

I did not have trouble posting comments full of substantive criticisms at Mike White's blog. You can read my substantive criticisms in the comments here. Shapiro had no comeback except to repeat "you're closed-minded" over and over again, nor did any creationists have any substantive comebacks.

Their genomes are still one-one hundredth the size of the genomes of certain amoeba species, one fifth the size of the marbled lungfish's genome, and eight times the size of the pufferfish genome. They have no explanation for that except to say, "It happened by magic!" If you want scientific explanations, see "The Origin of Genome Architecture" by Michael Lynch.

I was indeed banned from the Facebook page of the DI's Biologic Institute-- I wrote hundreds of comments comparing the "facts" in their book "Science and Human Origins" against actual facts. That made them look bad, so Ann Gauger deleted my comments and banned me.

I was also banned from the Facebook page of creationist Ray Comfort-- when he said Hitler was one of Darwin's "top students", I wrote dozens of comments pointing out that Hitler never said the name Charles Darwin, but did express his creationist beliefs in public and in private. This made Ray Comfort look bad, so he deleted my comments and banned me.

If you visit this thread at Larry Moran's Sandwalk, you should know that the "Anonymous" attacking me there is the same person as "rjop" attacking me in this thread, here. This person follows me from blog to blog, and has several online ID's, including rjop, misc, and anonymous.

I included a link to Mike White's blog, in the comments of which I included numerous quotes and evidence on genomics.

Did you look at that? Or did you just write whatever?

Here is a typical comment of mine from that blog:

Diogenes: "Here is Susumu Ohno, the scientist who coined the term "Junk DNA", correctly predicting how many genes humans would have, back in 1972, 40 years ago:

Ohno, 1972: "The observations on a number of structural gene loci of man, mice and other organisms revealed that each locus has a 10^-5 per generation probability of sustaining a deleterious mutation. ...the moment we acquire 10^5 gene loci, the overall deleterious mutation rate per generation becomes 1.0 which appears to represent an unbearably heavy genetic load. [Therefore] the total number of gene loci of man has been estimated to be about 3×10^4." [Ohno, S. 1972. So much “junk” DNA in our genome. Evolution of Genetic Systems, pp. 366-370.]

The same evolutionary arguments that put an upper limit of 30,000 on the number of human genes, also led to the prediction of Junk DNA.

Ohno's predictions were confirmed, first, by the Human Genome Project, which found ~25,000 genes.

ENCODE found organism-level function that constrains DNA sequence in only 9% of the genome, according to Ewan Birney."

Icplusplus:

If you did look at my comments at Mike White's blog, and after reading them, you then wrote "I see lots of ramblings, Diogenes, but no substance," you were just lying.

"Benevolent design." You mean like the nematode that causes river blindness in children? An infection which depends upon the nematode evading the immune systems of both its black fly vector and of humans, and also depends on the symbiosis of wolbachia and onchocerca? "It is not the nematode, but its endosymbiont, Wolbachia pipientis, that causes the severe inflammatory response that leaves many blind. The parasite is transmitted to humans through the bite of a black fly of the genus Simulium. The larval nematodes spread throughout the body. When the worms die, their Wolbachia symbionts are released, triggering a host immune system response that can cause severe itching, and can destroy optical tissue in the eye... An estimated 18 million people suffer from onchocerciasis, with approximately 270,000 cases of blindness related to the infection." [Wikipedia]

Or maybe by "Benevolent design", maybe you meant the many, many parasites that practice mind control and cause their hosts to go insane and commit suicide? Like the toxoplasma infection that controls the minds of mice, so that they run towards cats to be eaten?

Note there are 400 species of the fungus cordyceps, most exquisitely specific, sorry I meant "benevolent", to one species of insect host. And as for "benevolent" viruses:

"A single gene in a caterpillar virus sends its victims running for the treetops, where they die and their bodies liquefy, sending an ooze of virus particles on their brothers and sisters below. This... baculovirus infects only gypsy moth caterpillars, essentially turning them into zombies. It... sends them up into the tree leaves during the day (a behavior they normally save for the cover of darkness), where they die among the leaves as they wait to molt." [Ibid.]

Or maybe by "Benevolent design", you meant the trematode Ribeiroia, which is so "benevolently" designed that it can evade (benevolently) the very different immune systems of three very different hosts, infecting snails, then larval amphibians, then lastly infecting mammals or birds?

"Ribeiroia is a group of trematode parasites (or flatworms) that sequentially infect freshwater snails in the family Planorbidae... as first intermediate hosts, fish and larval amphibians as second intermediate hosts, and birds and mammals as definitive hosts... In North America, infection by Ribeiroia has been linked to amphibians with limb malformations, such as extra limbs and digits, missing limbs and limb elements, and improperly formed limbs." [Wikipedia]

Maybe by "Benevolent design" you meant sacculina, the crab parasite, which castrates them, changes their sex, and controls their minds?

“... the particularly gruesome "root-head" Sacculina that parasitizes crabs by castrating the crustacean and transforming it into "a feeding machine" to sustain the root-head, Gould (1996).” [James Downard vs. Ann Coulter, Part 2]

"The World Health Organization has estimated that in 2010, there were 216 million documented cases of malaria. That year, between 655,000 and 1.2 million people died from the disease (roughly 2000–3000 per day),[1] many of whom were children in Africa." [Wikipedia]

Diogenes do not flatter yourself I am not following you from blog to blog. I happened to be reading this article by Dr. Hunter and noticed your rants. And rjop, misc, and anonymous are the only ID's I use and have no problem stating I am the same person. You on the other hand have numerous ID's and lie about it.

presumably by Ann Gauger, since she maintains it, and it's her writing style.

Do tell what Ann's "writing style" is?

If you visit this thread at Larry Moran's Sandwalk, you should know that the "Anonymous" attacking me there is the same person as "rjop" attacking me in this thread, here. This person follows me from blog to blog, and has several online ID's, including rjop, misc, and anonymous.

So what, I told you then they are me. Are you ready to tell me your first name to clear the air?

Also it's the same person as "rjop" attacking me at Mike White's blog post on Junk DNA.

Rjop: Diogenes do not flatter yourself I am not following you from blog to blog

You admitted you followed me from HuffPost to Sandwalk.

In none of these places have you ever made a single scientific point, or related a single datum or tiny bit of scientific evidence. With you, it's nothing but ad hominems and argument from creationist authority.

"She speaks with a quiet, childish, high-pitched voice, and loves kittens, chocolate cakes, biscuits, tea and other cute things, decorating her office with related paraphernalia. She has a tendency to speak to people she feels are her lessers in a very condescending tone, as if they are simpletons or very young children.

...Umbridge's time at Hogwarts is characterised by cruelty and abusive punishments against students; she forces Harry Potter, Lee Jordan and other students to whom she gave detention to write lines using a blood quill... By speaking derisively to a herd of centaurs, she provokes them and they abduct her...

Umbridge [becomes] the head of the Muggle-born Registration Commission, and appears to have written a leaflet called "Mudbloods and the Dangers They Pose to a Peaceful Pure-Blood Society", indicating her full support of Voldemort's regime."[Wikipedia on Dolores Umbridge]

And I suppose calling Shapiro a "cowardly wuss" and ranting on how you get to blog on how Shapiro is "scared to death" of you is making a "scientific" argument. What was that about hypocrisy again? BTW where's the blog on how Shapiro's is "scared to death of you"?

You admitted you followed me from HuffPost to Sandwalk

Nope, I admitted to following you from the Christian Post (where you were posting under your real name) to Shapiro's blog in which you switched out ID's after I challenged you to post on his blog regarding Encode. You gave me the Sandwalk link when we were discussing Encode back in Sept. Stop playing dumb.

Morally superior schoolmarm

Really, citations of Ann's writing style being that of a Morally superior schoolmarm please. And still waiting for your fist name.

rjop has a mental fixation where she imagines that I am everyone on the internet who has ever proven her wrong, with evidence. Which is a hell of a lot of people. Thus she thinks she met me at Christian Post, where I never commented, and she says she knows my "real name", but she won't write it.

rjop:

Nope, I admitted to following you from the Christian Post (where you were posting under your real name) to Shapiro's blog in which you switched out ID's after I challenged you to post on his blog regarding Encode.

I stand corrected... sort of... you claim to have followed me, not from HuffPost, but from Christian Post. Where I never actually commented.

rjop: And still waiting for your fist name.

As I told you before: you insist you know my whole real name, so you prove that. Right it down yourself RIGHT NOW. Prove you know my name, crazy lady.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/